Duration: 2023 - 2027

Funding: Rhineland Regional Association (LVR) in cooperation with the chairs of "Methods of Empirical Educational Research" and "Rehabilitation Sociology" at TU Dortmund University

Project team: Dr Jana York, Sarah Lamb, Dr Sarah Schulze, Prof Dr Jörg-Tobias Kuhn, PD Dr Bastian Pelka. Dr Jan Jochmaring is involved in the Dortmund EvaEfA project.

Project homepage: https://aig.reha.tu-dortmund.de/projekte/evaefa/

Brief description: The single points of contact for employers (EAA, Section 185a SGB IX) were established in 2022. The Single Points of Contact for Employers assume an independent "pilot function" in the ecosystem of vocational rehabilitation and participation by proactively informing, advising and supporting employers in the training, recruitment and (further) employment of people with disabilities. As part of the EvaEfA project funded by the Inclusion Office of the Rhineland Regional Association (LVR Inclusion Office), the potential and effects of the EAA are being researched from an innovation theory perspective using a mixed-method design. The first project phase (2023-2025) analysed the predecessor structure of the EAA as well as networking and cooperation with other system-relevant actors in the vocational rehabilitation and participation ecosystem. The second project phase (2025-2027) evaluates the effects and impacts of the EAA in the vocational rehabilitation and participation ecosystem. Expert interviews and focus groups will be conducted to reconstruct possible facilitating and hindering factors with regard to the working methods, counselling practices, co-operation and effects of the EAA. The constellations within the EAA network will be analysed using qualitative and quantitative network analyses, communication and interaction processes will be researched and the stability of the networks will be examined longitudinally.

Duration: 2020-2025

Funding: PH Heidelberg

Project team: Dr Frauke Janz, Dr Stephanie Köb, Prof Dr Karin Terfloth & Prof Dr Teresa Sansour

Short description: In the LiES project, funded by the Heidelberg University of Teacher Education and carried out in co-operation with colleagues at the Heidelberg University of Teacher Education, three variants of a literary text are being investigated in terms of their effect on pupils (mainstream school and special education focus on intellectual development). The LiES research project focuses on the question of how different linguistic variants of a literary text affect the construction of meaning, what differences exist in this respect between young people with and without cognitive impairments and what (verbal and non-verbal) possibilities they use to express themselves about a literary text. The aim of the study is to identify the foundations and conditions for successful literary learning in heterogeneous learning settings. This includes findings on the reception processes of pupils with and without cognitive impairments, on their ability to express themselves on certain text variants and on ways of supporting such follow-up communication.

For some years now, a change in the pupil population has been observed in the special educational needs area of intellectual development. In addition to the rising number of pupils, behavioural problems are increasingly being observed. (Dworschak, Kannewischer, Ratz & Wagner, 2012; KMK, 2022). Sometimes massively challenging behaviours of individual pupils are observed again and again, which particularly challenge and sometimes overtax systems (Hennicke, 2021; Klauß, Hockenberger & Janz, 2016). This phenomenon, which can be described as system-breaking, also represents a central challenge for general pedagogy, which has become increasingly relevant in recent years (Baumann, 2009; Kieslinger, Dressel & Haar, 2021).

The planned research project aims to take a closer look at the group of people in the FSPGE who are so-called "system violators". This is to be done from the perspective of the "affected" teachers. The aim is to describe the group of so-called system violators from the teachers' perspective and to identify commonalities. Furthermore, forms of interaction and processual dynamics in the organisation and evaluation of relationships are to be worked out.

The knowledge gained in the course of this project is intended to show the scope and possibilities for action with regard to this group of people and thus relieve the burden on teachers. In addition, the findings can help to enable pupils to participate in lessons, which is restricted by measures such as exclusion from lessons (Klauß & Hockenberger, 2014, p. 79f.).

To answer the above-mentioned questions, a qualitative, theory-generating research approach is chosen, in particular grounded theory is used for evaluation (Hülst, 2013, p. 281). The qualitative data was collected using narrative, problem-centred interviews (Friebertshäuser & Langer, 2013, p. 442 f.). The interviewees were teachers at special schools specialising in intellectual development and day education centres in Lower Saxony.

Click here for the profile of Maria Kollmer.

Bibliography

• Baumann, M. (2009) Understanding subject-logical diagnostics for behavioural disorders - a toolkit for understanding processes in educational contexts, Hamburg: tredition.
• Dworschak, W., Kannewischer, S., Ratz, C. & Wagner, M. (2012). Assessment of behaviour in pupils with special educational needs. In W. Dworschak, S. Kannewischer, C. Ratz, & M. Wagner (Eds.), Pupils with a focus on intellectual development (SFGE) : an empirical study, (2nd ed. pp. 149-164). Oberhausen: Athena.
• Friebertshäuser, B. & Langer, A. (2013). Interview forms and interview practice. In B. Friebertshäuser, A. Langer, A. Prengel, H. Boller & S. Richter (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in educational science, (4th ed. pp. 437-455). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
• Hennicke, K. (2021). The obscured view: Behavioural and mental disorders in children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
• Hülst, D. (2013). Grounded theory. In B. Friebertshäuser, A. Langer, A. Prengel, H. Boller, & S. Richter (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in educational science, (4th ed. pp. 281-300). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
• Kieslinger, D., Dressel, M., & Haar, R. (2021). System sprenger*innen: resource-oriented approaches to a deficient conceptualisation. Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus.
• Klauß, T., & Hockenberger, M. (2014). How do teachers deal with behavioural problems? - Results of a survey in Baden-Würtemberg. In K. Hennicke & T. Klauß (Eds.), Problem behaviour of pupils with intellectual disabilities. Marburg: Lebenshilfe-Verlag. 62-88.
• Klauß, T., Hockenberger, M., & Janz, F. (2016). Which behaviour of pupils with a focus on intellectual development do teachers experience as conspicuous, problematic and stressful? In K. Hennicke & T. Klauß (eds.), Behavioural problems in pupils with intellectual disabilities - a challenge for education and child and adolescent psychiatry, (1st ed. pp. 18- 38). Marburg: Lebenshilfe-Verlag.
• KMK. (2022). special educational support in schools 2011 to 2020. Bonn.

Teachers experience interaction with pupils with intellectual development as increasingly stressful (Weiß, Kiel & Markowetz, 2017, p. 265). These challenges can be seen specifically in care activities, in shaping communication and in dealing with behavioural problems (Lindmeier, 2013, p.292). These conditions place complex demands on the professional actions of teachers specialising in intellectual development (Riegert, 2012, 19f). In order to fulfil these requirements, a high degree of reflexivity is required (Idel, Schütz, Thüne, 2021, p. 28). In the school context, formal and informal procedures are used for this purpose in order to create joint occasions for reflection within the teaching staff and thus promote a reflective examination of one's own actions (Kutting, 2010, p.118). Possible methods for a reflective discussion include collegial case counselling, community of practice or supervision (Tietze, 2010, p. 24; Bloh & Bloh, 2016, p. 215f; Belardi, 2024, p.149). The aim is to take a closer look at one of the aforementioned methods in practice, taking into account its applicability, using a qualitative-reconstructive method.

Here you can access the profile of Jette Schreiber.

Bibliography

• Belardi, N. (2024). Supervision and coaching. Basics, techniques, perspectives. Munich: C.H. Beck oHG..
• Bloh T., Bloh B. (2016). Teacher cooperation as a community of practice - on the importance of collective-implicit knowledge for cooperation-related competence development. Journal for educational research online, 8(3), pp. 207-230.
• Idel, T.- S., Schütz, A. & Thünemann, S. (2021). Professionalism in the school field of action. In J. Dinkelaker, K.-U. Hugger, T.-S. Idel, A. Schütz & S. Thünemann. Professionalism and professionalisation in pedagogical fields of action: school, media education, adult education (Vol. 3., pp.13 - 82). Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
• Kutting D. (2010). Teachers and case counselling. Collegial self-help. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
• Lindmeier, B. (2013). Professional action in the specialisation area of intellectual development. In K.-E. Ackermann (ed.), O. Musenberg (ed.) & J. Riegert (ed.) , Education for the mentally handicapped? Discipline - Profession - Inclusion. (291-314). Oberhausen: Athena.
• Riegert, J. (2013). Special educational professionalism in dealing with behavioural problems at schools with a focus on "intellectual development". Humboldt University of Berlin.
• Tietze, K. - O. (2010). Impact processes and personal effects of peer counselling. Theoretical designs and empirical research. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH.
• Weiß, S., Kiel, E. & Markowetz, R. (2017). Challenges in the special needs area of intellectual development from the perspective of teachers: An analysis using the critical incident method. Empirical special education, 3, 258-276.